I haven't been following the debate, but wiki suggests that the article cuch linked is inaccurate.
The article says that Peterson said X and X is untrue therefore Peterson is (pick your choice epithet)
The flaw in that argument is that Peterson didn't say X, he said Y, and the article doesn't address Y
From wiki

He stated that his objection to the bill was based on potential free speech implications if the Criminal Code is amended, as he claimed he could then be prosecuted under provincial human rights laws if he refuses to call a transsexual student or faculty member by the individual's preferred pronoun. Furthermore, he argued that the new amendments paired with section 46.3 of the Ontario Human Rights Code would make it possible for employers and organizations to be subject to punishment under the code if any employee or associate says anything that can be construed "directly or indirectly" as offensive, "whether intentionally or unintentionally". Other academics challenged Peterson's interpretation of C-16, while some scholars such as Robert P. George supported Peterson's initiative.

Peterson's argument seems to be that C-16 would have a knock-on effect on PROVINCIAL human rights laws so that misgendering would become a crime under PROVINCIAL human rights laws.
The article just says it wouldn't be a crime under C-16 itself

I noticed there aren’t any commas in your book. Is this your way of cutting back on punctuation noise? Commas are a kind of channel noise. You’re not getting to the verb fast enough. Why make us wait? The comma is on its way out. Use small words. The perfect illustration is a swear phrase: Go to hell! Screw you!

And most of it is coming from the EU.
Most farmers I know have at least 2 jobs, And their wives.

Best job is plumbing. Big bucks.

**

So, most farmers have two jobs, and

a) each one has a wife, who also qualifies as a "job," so 3 jobs?, (indeed, even I can be kind of "high maintenance" once in awhile, but I get back on track quickly!)
b) wives, who also have two jobs, or
c) more than one wife, and at that point, who cares about the jobs! Make hay while the sun shines!

Plumbing is indeed a lucrative and "great" job if you do not mind crawling around in small dank spaces, dealing with malodorous problems, and getting your hands dirty (really dirty) much of the time.

Sure, putting sinks into gourmet kitchens and wonderful bath-shower-hot tubs into marbled rooms would be "fun".

But when the emergency call comes in at 11 pm on a weekend, that's not going to be the work order...

Good find, trackstar. After I wrote it I realised it might be construed in different ways. Sheep farmers' wives cost a fortune.Most do their shopping in Grafton Street.

We had Junior and his metal buddies visiting us when the sewage system broke down. Not nice. The plumber fixed the blocked pipes (aaargh). And he installed a new 1000 litre water tank with a lock to make sure secret service don't tamper. The 2 erstwhile Harp lager tanks have now been laid to rust.

I found a dead sheep on the mountain. I let it dry out and it is now part of Junior's collections.

a) each one has a wife,Some have sheep

Some time ago I asked an American lady what seemed to her the most noticeable difference between Austria and America. Her answer: the plumbing!!